[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-254PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama
AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York JIM BAIRD, Indiana
BILL FOSTER, Illinois JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
DON BEYER, Virginia JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida Rico
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois VACANCY
KATIE HILL, California
BEN McADAMS, Utah
JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
------
Subcommittee on Research and Technology
HON. HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, Chairwoman
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana, Ranking Member
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
BRAD SHERMAN, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
BEN McADAMS, Utah JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
May 8, 2019
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Jim Baird, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives........... 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written statement............................................ 17
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 19
Written statement............................................ 20
Witnesses:
Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 25
Dr. Diane Souvaine, Chair, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 35
Written Statement............................................ 37
Discussion....................................................... 48
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation........ 66
Dr. Diane Souvaine, Chair, National Science Board................ 81
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Additional response submitted by Dr. France Cordova, Director,
National Science Foundation.................................... 90
A REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Haley
Stevens [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. This hearing will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time.
Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing to review the
National Science Foundation (NSF) Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
Request. Dr. Cordova and Dr. Souvaine, thank you for being
here.
The National Science Foundation plays a critical role in
advancing the U.S. scientific enterprise. NSF funding has
enabled the inventions of things that have become commonplace
in our lives: the first formal dictionary for American Sign
Language, the development of barcodes, and the invention of the
internet. I would like to congratulate both of our witnesses on
the National Science Foundation's most recent breakthrough: the
first image of a black hole.
As the only Federal science agency that supports basic
research across all fields of science and engineering, NSF
provides about one-fourth of all Federal support for basic
research conducted at colleges and universities. For
researchers in certain fields like computer science, biology,
and social science, NSF is the primary source of Federal
funding. NSF is also the principal source of Federal support
for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
education at all levels and in all settings, from pre-
kindergarten through career development. This work enables the
United States to lead the world in science and innovation,
compete in the global economy, and protect the health and
security of our citizens.
Funding for the NSF has steadily increased in recent years
thanks to Congress rejecting repeated proposals for cuts from
the current Administration. The agency's budget exceeded $8
billion for the first time in Fiscal Year 2019.
I will start with good news. I applaud the agency for
sustaining its commitment to the 10 Big Ideas. I am also glad
to see full funding for the construction of major research
facilities like the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization
Project and Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. Cutting-edge
equipment and facilities are essential for researchers to push
the boundaries of knowledge and for training the next
generation of top scientists.
I also appreciate the prioritization of artificial
intelligence, the future of work, and quantum science, two
areas which will be critical for U.S. economic and national
security. It is also safe to say that the world is waiting and
eager for our leadership in these areas. I'm happy to see the
increases in some areas--the budget increases, that is--for
these two important focuses on research in the Fiscal Year 2020
budget proposal.
Unfortunately, though, we continue to see a concerning lack
of understanding around the importance of science and yet again
another round of drastic cuts in funding for scientific
research proposed by the current Administration. The Fiscal
Year 2020 request proposes to cut a full $1 billion from the
National Science Foundation budget.
Henceforth, the role of Congress shall be exercised. We are
here today to evaluate the merits of these cuts, and, as Chair
of this Subcommittee on Research and Technology with oversight
of the NSF, I can unequivocally say that such a cut would
threaten our Nation's leadership in science and technology
across all fields of science and engineering. Despite some of
the interagency increases in AI and Quantum, making this a
zero-sum game by cutting other fields of science and
engineering and eroding the foundational backbone of all
emerging technologies is unwise at best.
The Fiscal Year 2020 budget proposal would also slow
progress in STEM education, including efforts to increase
diversity in our STEM workforce, the topic of a Full Committee
hearing led by our fabulous Full Committee Chair Eddie Bernice
Johnson that we are having later this week.
We are seeing a surge in demand for workers with STEM
skills across all sectors, and educators are struggling to keep
up. Within months of releasing its 5-year strategic plan in
STEM education, the current Administration put forward a
proposal to gut STEM education programs governmentwide. It
worries me that we are eager to talk about science and
scientific innovation in platitudes, and yet we fail to put
forward a strategic investment plan that would enable us to
compete and win in global marketplaces. The current proposal
represents a vision for science that, if realized, would be
disastrous for our Nation's long-term welfare, security, and
competitiveness.
Dr. Cordova, I appreciate the leadership and background and
experience that you and Dr. Souvaine bring to this agency. I
look forward to a discussion with both of you today on the
value of the National Science Foundation as a national asset
and the potential impacts of these cuts.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Now, I would like to recognize our
Ranking Member, Mr. Baird, for an opening statement.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and thank you for
convening today's hearing for this Fiscal Year 2020 budget
request for the National Science Foundation. And I really want
to thank our witnesses for being here today as well. I
appreciate that. I am looking forward to this opportunity to
learn more about the National Science Foundation and its
mission to promote the progress of science.
The NSF is the only Federal agency that supports basic
research across all scientific fields from biology to physics.
As a trained Ph.D. scientist, I know that basic research is the
seed that grows into the products and solutions that drive our
economy and improve our lives. The NSF plays a critical role in
helping educate and train the next generation of STEM workers,
and we need to invest in young people who will go into fields
where there is a national need and good-paying jobs.
Earlier this year, I joined Chairwoman Stevens in
introducing the Building Blocks of STEM Act. I look forward to
moving the bill forward and working with NSF to make sure we're
giving young students a foundation to continue in the STEM
studies. For the United States to remain competitive, we must
ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to
participate in STEM fields and build valuable, fulfilling
careers.
In my district, I am proud to represent Purdue University,
Indiana's Land Grant University, as Dr. Cordova well knows. NSF
funded nearly $68 million in groundbreaking research at Purdue
last year. To share just one example, NSF funded an engineering
research center at Purdue, which is developing new technologies
to produce fuels from U.S. shale-gas deposits that could inject
$20 billion annually into our economy. This is an example of
the potential impact of NSF-funded research.
As we've heard, the President's budget request for NSF is
just over $7 billion, a 12.5 percent decrease from last year's
enacted funding. Like all other agencies and departments, NSF
was forced to take and make tough decision and choices. The
budget request reflects an attempt to set priorities in a
constrained budgetary environment. The budget request
prioritizes funding for critical areas like artificial
intelligence, quantum technology, and advanced manufacturing. I
look forward to hearing about these new investments in today's
testimony.
But the President's budget proposal is just that. It's just
a budget proposal. It's ultimately up to Congress to decide at
what level NSF is funded. We have a constitutional obligation
and a responsibility to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent is
used as effectively and efficiently as possible. I appreciate
that today's hearing gives us the opportunity to fulfill that
duty.
And I thank the witnesses for being here today and yield
back my balance of time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time the Chair now recognizes
the Chairwoman of the Full Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an
opening statement.
Chairwoman Johnson. Good morning, and thank you, Chairwoman
Stevens and Ranking Member Dr. Baird, for holding this hearing
to review the National Science Foundation budget request for
Fiscal Year 2020. And thank you, Dr. Cordova and Dr. Souvaine,
for being here this morning. It is good to have both of you
again.
The National Science Foundation, during its nearly 70-year
history, has played a critical role in promoting our economic
prosperity, national security, and the health and well-being of
our population. It should come as no surprise that nations
around the world, including some of our rivals, have attempted
to replicate NSF in their own governments. This is why I'm
dismayed that the budget that has been sent over by the White
House proposes to cut NSF by a $1 billion. A cut like that
would keep us from funding excellent research and slow progress
in critical areas of technology development.
Unfortunately, this is a pattern that we've seen from this
White House over the past three budget cycles. To make matters
worse, the recent shut down of much of our government for 35
days, including the National Science Foundation, resulted in
delays for 2,000 grant applications. While there may seem to be
minor to some, delays in grant funding derail academic careers,
sometimes permanently.
Increasingly, U.S. students and early career researchers
are packing up for better opportunities abroad or leaving STEM
altogether. I have no doubt that we have the brainpower in this
country to continue to lead but not if we chase away our own
best and brightest and close our doors to the best and
brightest from around the world. I'm an optimist, but I also
recognize the sobering realities of increasing competition, a
growing skills gap, and crumbling research infrastructure.
We also gain from international collaboration, and other
countries investing more in R&D is overall a good thing.
However, we must maintain our investments to reap the benefits
of collaboration and protect our economic and national security
interests.
Some of my colleagues will say this is just a proposal, and
Congress has the final say in the budget. However, until
Congress acts, the agency and researchers can only plan
according to what's in the Administration's proposal.
Moreover, Congress itself has become too comfortable with
passing one short-term continuing resolutions one after another
that has done harm as well. Tomorrow morning, this Committee
will hold its first hearing since 2010 assessing the state of
diversity in STEM.
The NSF budget proposal includes $168 million in cuts to
NSF investment in broadening participation. The Administration
proposes to eliminate the STEM Partnerships Program and
significantly cut the Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. These
proposed cuts are included, despite this Administration
prioritizing diversity in its recent governmentwide STEM
strategic plan. A commitment to addressing our Nation's
challenges must involve more than just words.
Dr. Cordova, I do not question your commitment, nor the
commitment of the talented, hardworking staff around the--
across the National Science Foundation. I know you did your
best with a very challenging top line. But we cannot just keep
pretending year after year that everything is going to be OK
because Congress will restore the National Science Foundation's
funding.
As the months tick by between now and then, more students
and researchers across our Nation will lose hope that the
United States is still the best country in the world to be a
scientist. Our Nation's leadership, on both sides of the aisle,
must provide the support our students and researchers need to
apply their knowledge and talents to the betterment of our
society. I truly hope, going forward, we can do better than we
have been.
I look forward to the testimony and discussion, and I yield
back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time, the Chair now recognizes
the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Lucas, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking Member
Baird, for holding this hearing to review the National Science
Foundation's priorities for the year 2020.
Since its creation in 1950, the National Science Foundation
has played a critical role in advancing science for America's
national defense and economic security. Basic research
supported by NSF forms the foundation of discoveries that fuels
private-sector development. It also provides a training ground
for our Nation's scientists, engineers, and other STEM workers.
We've heard concerns about some of the proposed cuts
included in the Administration's request. I would remind my
colleagues that the President's budget request is just a
starting point for our discussions, as have all previous
Presidents' budgets been. We're here today to learn more about
how best to prioritize NSF's resources. It is also important to
note that in recent years Congress has decided to fund NSF at a
higher rate than the President's budget request.
I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to
prioritize basic research and development. This Committee has
demonstrated a long history of bipartisan support for the work
of the National Science Foundation. As the Ranking Member, I am
committed to working with Chairwoman Johnson and the
appropriators to continue that support. However, as I said at a
hearing earlier this year on American Competitiveness in
Science and Technology, we need to collectively do a better job
of explaining why science matters to all Americans.
NSF has a great story to tell. NSF-funded research is
helping address some of the Nation's most critical needs from
treating opioid addiction to bringing high-speed broadband to
rural areas across the country. In my home State of Oklahoma,
NSF invests $25 million a year in research and STEM education.
NSF is working with the University of Oklahoma on improving
forecasting of supercell thunderstorms. At Oklahoma State, NSF
is funding a program to give scientists the skills to be
entrepreneurs and start new small businesses.
At townhalls throughout my district in Oklahoma, I talk to
my constituents not just about the work that NSF and our other
science agencies are doing, but, more importantly, why it
matters to them. I'm sure my colleagues here do the same. And
NSF can do even more to help create a culture that both values
and prioritizes R&D.
I look forward to working with the leadership of the
National Science Foundation and the National Science Board to
meet this challenge and ensure America continues to lead in
technological advancement.
Thank you to witnesses Dr. Cordova and Dr. Souvaine for
your leadership and being here today to testify, and I yield
back, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time I'd like to introduce our
witnesses, and if you're looking for two inspiring, strong
women in the field of science, look no further than our expert
witnesses here before us today. Our first witness is Dr. France
Cordova. Dr. Cordova was confirmed as the 14th Director of the
National Science Foundation in 2014. Dr. Cordova is President
Emerita of Purdue University and Chancellor Emerita of the
University of California Riverside. Previously, she was Chief
Scientist at NASA, and Dr. Cordova received her bachelor of
arts degree from Stanford University and her doctorate in
physics from the California Institute of Technology.
Our next witness is Dr. Diane Souvaine. Dr. Souvaine is
currently the Chair of the National Science Board, the NSB, a
position that she has held since 2018. She is also a Professor
of Computer Science and an Adjunct Professor of Mathematics at
Tufts University. She was previously Vice Chair from 2016 to
2018 of the NSB and has chaired the NSB's Committee on Strategy
and Budget, its Committee on Programs and Plans, and has served
on its Committee on Audit and Oversight. Dr. Souvaine received
her master's and doctorate degrees in computer science from
Princeton University.
As our witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes
for your spoken testimony.
And, well, let me actually run back here, too, because we
jumped over with our opening statements, and I do want to make
a mention that if any other Members who wish to submit opening
statements, additional opening statements, they could either be
submitted at this point or into the record, so we're--you know,
if people want to do that, that's great.
As we jump to our witness testimony, though, you'll have
the 5 minutes. When you've completed your spoken testimony, we
will begin with questions, and each Member on the Subcommittee
will have 5 minutes to question you.
And so, right now, we will start with Dr. Cordova.
TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCE CORDOVA,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Cordova. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member
Dr. Baird, and Members of the Subcommittee, Chairwoman Johnson,
Ranking Member Lucas. It's a pleasure to be with you today and
thank you for your stirring, inspiring words.
The President's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request for the
National Science Foundation is $7.1 billion. This request makes
targeted investments in basic research within the constrained
budget environment. My written testimony contains the details
of the Fiscal Year 2020 request. I'd like to take the next few
minutes to focus on the importance of NSF's mission and our
Fiscal Year 2020 investments.
Last month, NSF and the Event Horizon Telescope team
brought the world the first-ever image of a black hole. This
amazing feat of global cooperation and ingenuity in science and
engineering underscores NSF's unique and incredibly valuable
mission. We fund the most promising basic research in all
disciplines of science and engineering, and every major
newspaper of the world had that image on it. It was absolutely
amazing. Talk about bringing science to people--very inspiring.
Our track record of making wise investments is strong.
Since its creation in 1950, NSF has supported 236 Nobel Prize
winners at some point in their careers. Over the past 70 years,
NSF's mission has contributed greatly to our country's economic
prosperity, our national security, our health, and our global
leadership in innovation.
Basic research lays the foundation upon which progress is
built. Without it, we would not have many of the modern-day
technologies and advancements that are so ubiquitous in our
lives. For example, NSF played a critical role in additive
manufacturing, which has revolutionized the way we conceive of
and build everything from electronic devices to artificial
organs. NSF has also given early support to visionary
entrepreneurs that have developed major companies like
Qualcomm, Symantec, and Google. Google alone has seen a
200,000fold return on NSF's original investment.
From the discovery of a microbe's enzyme in the Hot Springs
of Yellowstone National Park that makes modern DNA
fingerprinting possible to computer devices that help
elementary school students learn, NSF supports the discoveries
and the discoverers that keep the United States at the leading
edge of innovation. Paul Romer, co-winner of the 2018 Nobel
Prize for Economics, has emphasized that human capital,
innovation, and knowledge are vital contributions to economic
growth.
The Fiscal Year 2020 budget request contains two
cornerstones of NSF's vision for the future: the 10 Big Ideas
and the Convergence Accelerator. NSF's 10 Big Ideas define a
set of cutting-edge research agendas that are uniquely suited
for its broad portfolio of investments and will require
collaborations with industry, academia, and others. Each of the
10 Big Ideas was chosen to be a catalyst for fundamental
research that will expand the boundaries of our knowledge from
the cellular level to the cosmos. For instance, understanding
how new technologies are shaping the lives of workers and how
people in turn can shape those technologies, that's the focus
of NSF's Big Idea on The Future of Work.
Also important is the Convergence Accelerator, which will
be focused on high-risk, high-reward innovative thinking to
accelerate discovery and innovation and achieve rapid lab-to-
market outcomes.
We're also making significant investments to continue U.S.
leadership in artificial intelligence, quantum information
science, and advanced manufacturing. Public-private
partnerships have long been one of NSF's core strategies. As we
look to the future in these and other areas, they'll be even
more important.
We continue to invest in large-scale research facilities
that keep the United States at the forefront of discovery--
deploying a new supercomputer at the University of Texas,
completing the construction of the solar telescope DKIST and
the optical observatory LSST, and modernizing the Antarctic
facilities of which NSF is the steward for the Nation.
NSF is also proposing dedicated funding for the scientific
infrastructure that falls between our smaller programs and
large construction projects. The need for mid-scale funding has
been called out by Congress, the National Academies, and the
National Science Board.
Perhaps most importantly, we continue to invest in people.
Discoveries don't happen without discoverers. We must continue
to light the imagination of the next generation and support and
nurture their curiosity. Thus, NSF is focused on advancing
excellence in STEM education at all levels and in all settings
to support the development of a diverse and well-prepared
workforce.
NSF's Advanced Technological Education program involves
partnerships between academic institutions and industries to
prepare science and engineering technicians in the industries
of the future. The vast majority of those projects are situated
in community colleges.
I'd be remiss not to also thank Congress for the strong
support provided for NSF's mission, especially in Fiscal Year
2019. With that funding, we're making investments that keep the
United States at the cutting edge of scientific discovery and
Americans leading the world in scientific achievement.
Thank you for your time today and for your continued strong
support of NSF and our mission.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cordova follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. And at this time, we will now
recognize Dr. Souvaine for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DIANE SOUVAINE,
CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Dr. Souvaine. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Baird,
Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking Member Lucas, thank you for
this opportunity to be with you here today.
Let me say first that I greatly appreciate the longstanding
bipartisan support Congress and this Committee in particular
has shown for NSF. We thank you for our Fiscal Year 2019
appropriation, which exceeds $8 billion for the first time.
The Federal Government is uniquely able to invest in
fundamental research that drives innovation, impacting
everything from national security to economic growth to
education. The wisdom of Congress to sustain NSF funding levels
despite competing priorities has helped ensure America has the
new discoveries and technologies necessary for our security and
prosperity.
I am confident that NSF will continue to manage its
portfolio and do great things at the $7.1 billion level of the
Fiscal Year 2020 request, and yet the NSB sees vastly more
potential. In my written testimony I note that in Fiscal Year
2017 NSF could not fund $1.6 billion worth of outstanding
merit-review proposals. Are we already losing out on the next
Google, the next LIGO, or the next Kevlar? How many budding
researchers might see a foreign talent program as the only
option for pursuing the research that they love? I think all of
us would rather see these discoveries blossom into new
innovations here in the United States.
Last year, my predecessor testified that China is
overtaking us in R&D investments. While science is the endless
frontier, we are not the only explorers. If the United States
is to maintain its standing as a global leader in science and
engineering, we need a renewed national commitment to
fundamental research.
I believe that this must include four components: First,
money. After more than a decade on the board, I believe that
NSF's budget needs an out-of-cycle adjustment. In this century
it has not kept up with economic growth even as the economy has
become more dependent on knowledge and technology-intensive
industries. The proposed budget is a $1 billion cut. This would
meet even more great ideas left on the table for others to find
and make it increasingly hard for American scientists and
engineers to be the vanguard of science and engineering
infrastructure.
Dr. Cordova and her team have done an exceptional job of
preserving balance and continuing to chart a course for
impactful science that serves this country. But my 30 years of
experience as a computer scientist and more than a decade on
the board has left me with one conclusion. We are eating our
seed corn.
Second, we need a long-term strategy. OSTP Director Kelvin
Droegemeier has called for a holistic assessment of the
Nation's science and engineering enterprise to help match our
strategic priorities with our investments. I think this is a
good idea, and I hope that will jumpstart a broader
conversation about the challenges and opportunities facing our
country in science and engineering.
For its part, NSF has already started to think in new ways.
Under the leadership of Doctor Cordova, NSF has identified 10
Big Ideas, including preparing the future of work in a world
with AI. Harnessing the data revolution is equally important.
The board agrees that gathering researchers from across
disciplines to tackle timely challenges will ensure that the
agency's impact exceeds the sum of its parts.
Our strategy must include a commitment to ensuring that
America has a STEM-capable workforce. We need to draw on the
abilities and creativity of all of our citizens. This means
improving and broadening STEM education and providing the
problem-solving skills required in a job market often driven by
advances in science and engineering.
Third, values. To remain a leader, global leader in S&E, we
need to recognize that America has not led with dollars alone.
We also lead by showing the world what a healthy research
environment looks like. We should embrace American traditions
of exploration, risk-taking, openness, and transparency. We
should have no tolerance for sexual harassment or fraud. We
should aspire to remain the shining beacon on the hill that
invites the best minds from around the world to come here and
perform research and innovate.
This does not mean naivete. We must protect our national
security. NSB applauds efforts taken and steps taken by NSF and
others to ensure and enforce existing conflict policies and
enhance awareness of security concerns at universities. But our
national security depends strongly on our leadership in science
and engineering, which in turn is built on fundamental research
and the free exchange of ideas.
Fourth, inspiration. We need the support of many leaders,
including you, to inspire the next generation to be curious and
to build the future. My generation was inspired by President
Kennedy's call to explore the next frontier. Now excitement
arises from new technologies and competition everywhere we
look. It is on us to convey our appreciation and our
understanding of the opportunities in science and engineering
to back up that voice with a strategy and a sustained
commitment to say to our citizens and to the world great ideas
are born here.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Souvaine follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. At this time we will begin
the questions, and the Chair will recognize herself for 5
minutes.
Dr. Souvaine, in 2017, the National Science Board created a
Task Force on the Skilled Technical Workforce charged with
making policy recommendations to support workers that use STEM
knowledge and skills on the job without the need for a
bachelor's degree if I have that right. Can you update us on
the activities undertaken by the task force, and could you also
expound on when we can expect to find a summary of its findings
and recommendations?
Dr. Souvaine. Yes. The task force will be reporting out to
the board in our board meeting next week and sharing a draft of
the proposal--the proposed findings. We expect that the final
report, with luck, is released at the end of June, and we would
be happy to share those results earlier.
Our work is comprised of multiple components. We've had
listening sessions around the country to listen to students,
faculty, members of industry, members of administrations of
community colleges over the course of the 18 months we've been
working on this. We've also been doing a lot of data gathering,
working with NCSES, so there are multiple facets to this.
Chairwoman Stevens. And I applaud both your efforts to push
the boundaries of scientific discovery through the Big Ideas
and Convergence Accelerator. Dedicating funds for these efforts
is clearly important, and it also certainly means tradeoffs
with other programs supported by NSF, including core research
programs and potentially, you know, troubling support for
graduate and undergraduate education and training through the
Graduate Research Fellowship Program and Research Experiences
for Undergraduates, which NSF administers. Both programs would
see a substantial cut if the current budget were enacted.
I'd like you both to address two questions. One, how does
the agency balance support for convergent research with support
for the core research programs; and, two, how important is it
to provide research experiences to undergraduates and dedicated
support to graduate students? How will the Big Ideas and other
convergence efforts support education and training for these
students?
Dr. Cordova. I'll start. Thank you for the question. The
Big Ideas grew out of a desire to give a more strategic
framework to NSF's ideas for what requires future investment.
They all grew out of the core, and they'll eventually go back
into the core.
For example, take the Quantum Leap. NSF has been funding
quantum research for the past three decades, and in fact 31
Nobel Prize winners for their quantum research achievements
have been funded by the National Science Foundation over the
past 30 years. And so it's not new.
What is new is the emphasis on how important quantum,
especially its marriage with information sciences, is to the
future of the country to get going fast and to accelerate it.
And this acceleration depends on a convergent approach, that we
need the computational scientists, we need the physical
scientists, we need the engineers all coming together in order
to make progress even faster along this trajectory.
And you can take any of the Big Ideas--Rules of Life, for
example, is integrated into all of the biological sciences.
It's really what they're looking for. So how do you get from
the genome and its environment to phenotype? And that's
important for agriculture; it's important for all the science
we do.
So in all of the Big Ideas we are clearly funding faculty
and researchers and their students, and, yes, it is involving
the young people who will be the leaders of the future in these
big, strategically important areas for the country.
It's interesting to me that exactly 3 years ago we
introduced the Big Ideas to the National Science Board, which
said, ``have Big Ideas.'' The board has embraced them and, in
the meantime, we had a transition in administration. The new
administration has taken them on with a passion: Artificial
intelligence, quantum information science, advanced
manufacturing, and the future of work. So it seems that NSF was
prescient in taking those ideas out of the core and giving them
much more significance because that's where our country is
headed, and frankly, it's where the whole world is headed.
There's some fierce competition in this idea space.
Dr. Souvaine. Briefly, we need to find the best ideas
wherever they arise and be able to be driven bottom up. At the
same time we need to foster great opportunities of both
convergence across areas but strategic areas that are timely,
so this is--I concur with what Dr. Cordova just said. I also
think that we need--and we'll come back to this, I'm sure--a
broader pipeline of people going into science and engineering
at all different levels.
So for me the funding of undergraduate research is
critical. This is what does the inspiring I was talking about
and gets undergraduates to move forward. We need to be funding
more graduate students from all backgrounds from across the
country who want to come and study, and the fellowships are
critical.
Chairwoman Stevens. Well, we want to certainly continue to
make sure that those opportunities and onramps for those
opportunities are taking place here in the United States.
I'm over time, so with that, I'd like to recognize our
Ranking Member, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cordova, in December the President signed into law the
National Quantum Initiative Act, and as you know from your
tenure at Purdue University, it was one of the first
institutions to establish a quantum research center and it's
well-positioned to help advance these new initiatives. Could
you update us on how NSF is responding to the new law and what
opportunities will be there for institutions like Purdue to
participate?
Dr. Cordova. Certainly, thank you. So a number of the
agencies have been funding--especially NSF and NIST--quantum
research for a long time. Other agencies are revving up like
the Department of Energy. They're funding as well. We all came
together with the Office of Science and Technology Policy to
produce a strategic plan for quantum information sciences in
particular, which has terrific opportunities in the area of
computing, which will be a gamechanger for how we do anything
that involves computations.
Congress, at the same time, passed this initiative so all
of this was rolled out at the same time. The White House had a
summit at which agency heads like myself spoke, and we gathered
researchers from Purdue and many universities around the
country to talk about their efforts. We fund a number of
centers, NSF does, around the country in quantum research in
general, and we all talked about how to accelerate those
efforts because it's so important and so competitive globally
that we do so.
As far as the law goes, OSTP is coordinating this effort
with all the agencies. There's a coordinating group that's been
set up under the leadership of Jake Taylor. We are all coming
together periodically to share what we're doing and to
coordinate those efforts around the country.
NSF is funding a lot of new efforts and centers and
activity. For example, one is a collection of about 15
universities to build the first fully functional quantum
computer. There's just a lot of energy around this, and we're
really glad that Congress is so enthusiastic about positioning
the United States to be the global leader in this area.
Mr. Baird. I have another question, and maybe both of you
can respond to this as well. Last week this Committee held a
roundtable with Federal agencies focused on artificial
intelligence and research, including NSF. Can you discuss what
type of strategy you think is needed to maintain the U.S.
leadership in the AI field?
Dr. Cordova. Our artificial intelligence, like quantum
research, is just an extremely productive, vigorous area of
research in all kinds of ways in the United States and
globally.
I co-chair an entity called the Select Committee on
Artificial Intelligence, together with the head of DARPA, for
the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Again, it's a
collection of agencies that come to discuss what we are doing
and what we can do together to further position the United
States.
The National Science Foundation is spending in this Fiscal
Year 2020 budget alone about $492 million on artificial
intelligence writ broadly, and that's a big investment for the
size of our budget. We are collaborating with industry and
foundations and others in several very important partnerships,
for example, on the ethics, fairness, and bias in everything
that surrounds AI to make sure we do it in the right way. We
have a collaboration with a group called the Partnership in
AI--which is about 50 industries and others that we're working
with--and we are asking for proposals, and we will co-fund
those proposals.
We're also working with Amazon. It's our first such
partnership in which Amazon is providing $10 million and NSF
$10 million over the next 3 years to ask for proposals from the
scientific community writ broadly to deal with issues around
artificial intelligence. As my colleague Dr. Souvaine said, our
Future of Work Big Idea is really being done within the
framework of how artificial intelligence will affect the future
of work. That's not just the future of work in the factory.
That's the future of work in the classroom for teachers ad how
it will help them. It's the future of work in assisted living
and in all places where people conduct their work.
Dr. Souvaine. I think that our funding and investment in
artificial intelligence needs to be commensurate with our
national goals and aspirations, and we need to think about that
as we go forward.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And, Dr. Souvaine, I noticed your
analogy about eating our seed corn, and I'm out of time but
maybe I'll have a chance to ask that question, what you meant
by eating our seed corn. I think I understand. Thank you.
Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. At this time I'd like to
recognize my colleague Ms. Sherrill for 5 minutes of questions.
Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you both for coming here today.
I'd like to applaud the historical bipartisan support for the
NSF of this Committee. But I couldn't agree more with Ranking
Member Lucas that we need to do more to educate the American
people on the benefits of research and the need for good
research to keep our economy ahead.
But talking a bit about what you said, Dr. Souvaine, you
kind of touched on this. Often, the transfer of knowledge and
technology between countries can be mutually beneficial.
Historically, we benefited even from scientific cooperation
with our geopolitical adversaries. Our economic competitiveness
and national security are threatened, however, when our Federal
investments in R&D, especially in emerging technologies, are
transferred to another country through coercion, theft, or
espionage. The Inspector General recently highlighted the
agency's response to the national security threat of foreign
talent as an emerging management challenge.
What steps is NSF taking to ensure its research investments
are protected from these threats? And you both--if you could
both answer that.
Dr. Souvaine. I'll defer very soon to Dr. Cordova on that,
but I think that we want to be good partners with all countries
where we're good partners, and that requires some of the values
that I was referring to earlier. Clearly, this country benefits
substantively from all of the people from around the world who
come here to do great science. We benefit from the great
partnerships with scientists across the world. Fundamental
research requires transparency and engagement, exchange of
ideas, which then can blossom. We do have to protect things.
And as I referred to in my opening remarks, I think NSF is
working hard with universities, and our board statement
reiterated that universities must be on top of their conflict-
of-interest and conflict-of-commitment policies and we need to
be working harder to make sure those are always honored.
Dr. Cordova?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, Congresswoman, one of the crucial issues
of our time is this balance between openness that has brought
us so far intellectually as a country and given us so much and
protecting research in the research environment.
I'll just mention four steps that the National Science
Foundation is doing. About a year ago we changed the
requirement for rotators. We have close to 200 rotators who
come in from universities, and they're in positions from
Program Officers to Assistant Directors. They provide great
value. We changed the requirement to be consistent with the
Federal requirement that they be U.S. citizens or applying for
U.S. citizenship. We didn't have that requirement before.
That's one thing.
Since 1978, we've required complete disclosure forms from
all our applicants for research grants. We haven't been so good
about the requirements for what those disclosure forms should
look like or monitoring, assessing, and auditing them. So we
are tightening up our disclosure forms.
We're establishing an easily computer-read disclosure form.
We call it a bio-bib because it has the bibliography and
biography. It has all forms of support that the researcher
could get either from here or from anywhere else--in a very
clear format. It would be uniform so a person only has to do it
once and then update it. Machines could easily read it and look
for whatever was of interest there. So we think this will go a
long way to streamlining and enhancing what we know about other
forms of support that proposers can have.
We are asking an expert committee called the Jasons to do a
risk assessment on research protection because we need to know.
As we take more steps to protect the integrity of research, we
need to be careful that we don't overdo something or underdo
it. You really have to understand what the risks are out there,
and these are all people with top security clearances. We'll
have that piece of work done hopefully this summer.
And then finally, we're working with the National Academies
of course, which has a lot of expert people on it. We'll have a
meeting this Friday at the National Academies, an entire half-
day on this subject and see where to go from here and talk
about what is needed.
The important thing is 85 percent of our clients--our
grantees--are universities. It's important that we engage the
leadership of universities so that they are very aware of
what's going on and that they're very much partners with us.
And many universities--we mentioned Purdue earlier is an
example of one that has really taken this very seriously--have
security people there. But not all universities do, and so
we're trying--we're working on that front as well.
Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you. My time is expired, but I
hope you are--conversely, you know, also worried about
overprotection, and it sounds like you're very aware of that as
well. Thank you so much.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. At this time we'd like to
recognize Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chair. I couldn't help but, as Dr.
Baird was pursuing his line of inquiry, think about, Dr.
Cordova, one of those areas that I have great interest in,
which of course is the National Science Foundation's
Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR
affectionately known to all of us, which aims to assist States
and universities in rural areas, underserved areas. It was
updated by Congress 2 years ago based on outside panel
recommendations. Could you visit for a moment about how NSF is
implementing these changes and making sure the program is best
serving rural States, yes, like Oklahoma, too?
Dr. Cordova. We are very, very proud of the EPSCoR
program--very pleased with its results. As you know, there have
been graduates from the program, so it has done what it
intended to do. There have been several of those States that
have achieved more capacity to do more research, and so that's
great. We are constantly reviewing the program, tooling it up
for more and better collaborations.
What I've seen over the last few years is that we've
reached out to assimilate other NSF programs within the EPSCoR
program, for example, artificial intelligence or quantum or
STEM education, and made sure that the EPSCoR proposers had the
opportunities to be in those areas as well. I think things are
going very well in the EPSCoR program, and we certainly would
like the feedback of any members.
I go out a lot to EPSCoR States and I just see the kinds of
things they're achieving, and again, I'm very proud that
Congress stood up that program.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Dr. Cordova, I share Chairwoman
Johnson's concerns about a STEM-ready workforce, and it appears
that many American companies are in desperate need of those
kind of individuals, STEM-ready. You recently worked with the
Administration on a new 5-year strategy for STEM education
across the Federal Government. How will this plan help address
those industry needs?
Dr. Cordova. Yes, in early December the White House office
of OSTP rolled out the STEM education plan, and agencies all
had a lot of fingerprints on it. I think it's just a great
plan. It actually speaks to, among other things, the need for a
diverse and inclusive workforce. There's a lot of emphasis on
programs like our INCLUDES programs that is broadening
participation that will help get us there.
And at the time of the rollout of the STEM education plan,
we were pleased to report that five other agencies of the
Federal Government, including NIH and NASA, NIST, USGS, were
joining the INCLUDES program to broaden participation. I think
STEM education is, of course, a great way to do that.
Other elements of the plan really articulate the need for a
skilled technical workforce. As was mentioned in the earlier
conversation, the Board and NSF are working very hard to
increase the attention on the need for a skilled technical
workforce.
I did mention in my opening remarks the Advanced
Technological Education program, which we've had for 25-plus
years at NSF. That is mostly in community colleges, and its
whole focus is on skilling the workforce. The President has a
special committee on the American worker, and that is very,
very focused on reskilling and upskilling the workforce for the
technical jobs of the future.
So I've seen in just the last few years a tremendous
emphasis in that direction. I think our National Science Board
has rightly pointed out that we should increase and even
accelerate those efforts. In fact, one other thing I'd like to
mention is we have a statistical agency at NSF called NCSES,
the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.
They have taken on a new effort to assess what is the current
situation for skilled workers, how many do we have, where are
they located, what do industries need for the future? Where are
the gaps and all? So I think we're going to see a lot more
emphasis on this as we go forward.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Souvaine, could you share for just a moment
the board's perspective on this, too?
Dr. Souvaine. Certainly. I think that since September 2018
when we started our skilled technical workforce task force, I
think we've been looking very hard at the issue of the needs of
skilled technical workers across all levels. I can think of one
of the listening sessions we did at Macomb Community College in
Michigan where there were members of industry that were there
that had many, many jobs available open at the EDK level or
higher but didn't have the right applicants to be able to fill
them.
And this partnership, which came through an ATE program
funded by NSF together with the local industry, together with
the local community colleges, more than just Macomb, were doing
something about drawing students in and trying to partner with
them and have them learn the skills that they need with 2 years
of training to be able to go on and enter these important jobs,
maybe then going on later to a 4-year college or graduate
school or something else, but entering the workforce and
addressing this critical need.
Certainly, when we visited LIGO in Louisiana, we had the
privilege of talking with David Barker there, who was
responsible for the two-story HVAC system. And without this
system, which is far more technically complex than an HVAC
system was 10 years ago or 20 years ago, certainly the Nobel
Prize winners would not have been able to get the Nobel Prize
without that. There's a real--there is a real need there.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Doctor. And thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time we'd like to now recognize
Dr. Bill Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses.
I'd like to speak a little bit about the issue with the
Jasons that I believe you're familiar with. And for those of my
colleagues who may not be, from I guess since the 1960s, the
Jasons have been a group of very accomplished Nobel prize-
winning-level scientists, mainly physicists, who provided
confidential advice to the government, often very classified,
very classified, so with everything from, you know, modern
concerns like pit lifetimes or electronic warfare to I think
back in the earlier years they provided an estimate or a second
opinion to an Administration on whether or not it was a good
idea to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, which apparently the
Administration at the time needed advice on.
And so it was a sort of shock to the scientific community a
few weeks ago to learn that the Department of Defense had
actually canceled the umbrella contract for the Jasons. And so
this is a real source of concern because, you know, it's very
often that those at agencies don't have the technical expertise
particularly about speculative future technologies and need to
be able to quietly ask a question that, you know, is this a
concern, what are the possible things, you know, without having
that, you know, become a source of, you know, public
embarrassment if it turns out the question they're asking is--
you know, sounds--could be made to sound, you know, not too
sophisticated. And so, you know, I think the scientific
community really values this as a communication channel.
And it's my understanding also that the National Science
Foundation was specifically looking at contracting with the
Jasons to deal with this very tough problem that you're facing
that, although the NSF has historically done non-classified
research and published the results in the open literature, so
many of the technologies now are dual use, you know, everything
from biotech to artificial intelligence, you name it.
And so, first off, it's my understanding that there is a
temporary fix to this, that instead of the Department of
Defense canceling the budget, that it has been at least for
this Fiscal Year transferred to the Department of Energy and
NSA to keep the umbrella contract alive? Is that also----
Dr. Cordova. Our understanding is the Department of Energy,
specifically NNSA, is looking to have a 9-month contract, that
it is not fully completed yet. They're still in discussion. But
we expect that that will happen, and that will get them through
their summer studies. As you know, that's when they do their
work because they have day jobs at universities.
And we had proposed a summer study on research protection
on assessing the risk in this current climate of trying to make
sure that our research has integrity and looking at the
situation vis-a-vis other countries and seeing what steps the
National Science Foundation should be taking in order to make
sure the research is secure.
Mr. Foster. So at present you view at least the short term
fix as adequate? Because, you know, one of the things that I
think we're going to have to be working on in Congress is to
make sure there's a long-term home for the funding here, that
this is not something that gets, you know, jerked around and
canceled and uncanceled continuously because the cancellation
was only weeks before you had your kickoff with--my
understanding, the kickoff meeting where these summer studies
would have started.
Dr. Cordova. It is true that the Jasons have done a study
for us in the past, and we could all use expert advice.
Mr. Foster. Yes. So if you see anything that changes where
that is once again put at risk, please, you know, let Congress
know quickly and make that request because this is important.
Now, in terms of the gist of what you'd ask the Jason to
look at, and, Dr. Souvaine, you were quoted at a recent Science
magazine article as being concerned about, you know, the policy
implications of the fact that there are countries now targeting
the United States for, I don't know whether you'd call it
technology transfer or theft or whatever, and that, because of
the dual-use nature of many NSF-sponsored technologies, is
there anything you can say about your thinking on how we should
respond to that?
Dr. Souvaine. I don't recall the exact reference you've
raised, but certainly we are concerned about intellectual
espionage, and NSF's OIG has found cases where this has
happened. And--but as the board said in our formal statement
last year, American technological preeminence is also critical
for our economy and security, and we need to recognize that
that's based on our leadership in fundamental research. And for
that, creativity and collaboration and the free exchange of
ideas are essential.
To paraphrase President Reagan's National Security Decision
Directive 189, it's important that fundamental research remain
unrestricted the maximum extent possible. So how do you balance
that? I think partly what Dr. Cordova was just talking about in
terms of making sure that universities are putting the
protections in place or reactivating them if they had slipped a
little bit is important.
And they've adjusted, as she said, the rules for IPOs. It's
also true that NSF's current proposal guide now has some
changes in it like one is if a proposal includes funding to be
provided to an international branch of a U.S. institution of
higher education, including through use of subawards and
consultant arrangements, the proposer must explain the benefits
to the project of the performance done at that international
branch campus and justify why the project activities cannot be
performed at the U.S. campus.
So I think there's a real work in place at providing
balance. I think, obviously, the Jason study is going to be
very helpful in looking at next steps.
Mr. Foster. Yes. No, this is a tough issue that we're going
to be grappling with for a while.
Dr. Cordova. For the record, I want to be sure just to
clarify one thing. I think what Dr. Souvaine meant was that
other agencies, specifically the NIH, have found instances of
espionage. We have not at NSF. Definitely, we are working very
closely with our Inspector General on this, and there are
vulnerabilities, which is why we'd like to hire the Jasons to
look at what are the risks, what are those vulnerabilities and
understand them better.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful,
you know, work on this because it's a tough issue, and yield
back.
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time we'd like to recognize Mr.
Marshall for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Marshall. Yes, think you so much, Madam Chairwoman.
I'll start with Dr. Cordova. I'm a proud community college
graduate, as well as a university undergraduate degree and a
medical degree, so very proud of all those institutions in
Kansas.
I know recently Seward County Community College told me
they were doing some research funded, I believe, through NSF.
Just kind of tell me what your vision is, how it's going. Has
this been going on a long time using NSF funding at community
colleges or where do you think it's going?
Dr. Cordova. We've been funding, for just over 25 years
through our Advanced Technological Education program, community
colleges. That's not the only program we have in community
colleges of course. We are completely open to really good
proposals and good ideas through our merit-review process. We
then triage which are the best ideas, and we fund them. And
they can come from wherever.
But we have a specific community college program called
ATE, Advanced Technological Education. This has proven just a
great program for students who might not want to have a 4-year
degree or become a Ph.D. but want to go into the skilled
technical workforce.
I've visited a couple of these, and I'm just so impressed
by the facilities that they have and the enthusiasm of
students, and they're getting a really, really fine education
from the faculty. Faculty are just very, very committed to this
kind of training.
We also have programs in STEM education which give research
experiences for community college students to come, say, for
the summer and work at a 4-year college. So it makes the
transition, should they wish to go from community college to a
4-year institution, easier and smoother. They already know a
laboratory and some faculty and so on.
Mr. Marshall. If you had never done this before within your
department, what branch carries this out? Who would they
contact?
Dr. Cordova. Oh, it's in Education and Human Resources,
EHR.
Mr. Marshall. Right.
Dr. Cordova. They can contact me. That's what we have the
forward button on our computers for.
Mr. Marshall. Well, I understand.
Dr. Cordova. I'll be happy to help.
Mr. Marshall. OK. I want to talk a little bit about your
interaction with the private sector. I'm always concerned that
we're doing research just for the sake of research, and I also
believe within a system or goal, it's either getting better or
worse. What are we doing to improve relationship with private
industry and helping promote sharing the knowledge that we have
for innovators to keep innovating?
Dr. Cordova. We have a lot of partnerships with industries
at all levels. We have about 100 active partnerships and about
another 100 under some form of discussion. Perhaps our biggest,
most recent partnership, is with Boeing, and it's on two
things. One is on upping online education in engineering. It's
in the production realm, and it's how to increase access for
people to get online education to up their engineering skills.
Boeing is very interested in that, so they have given us $10
million, which we've matched with $10 million.
They gave us another $1 million for our INCLUDES program
that I mentioned earlier, which is broadening participation.
This is specifically for women to reenter the workforce after
they've taken time off and they want to reenter the STEM
engineering workforce.
Another partnership is with Amazon. That is on artificial
intelligence and it's a 3-year program. Again, $10 million from
Amazon and $10 million from us. It's to invite proposals that
look at the ethical framework for artificial intelligence to
make sure that we have, as Dr. Souvaine talked about earlier,
our American values as we construct the infrastructure for
artificial intelligence.
We have collaborations with Google, with all the big
internet companies, and we have collaborations, of course,
through our SBIR program, Small Business Innovative Research.
We're funding a lot of really frontline research on all kinds
of science and engineering projects.
Mr. Marshall. I want to try to jump in and get one more
quick question in. The cost to do research per unit certainly I
think would vary from place to place. How do you factor that in
or do you at all?
Dr. Cordova. Yes. You mean when proposals come in?
Mr. Marshall. Right. I would just assume that research per
unit would be cheaper at a place where the labor costs are less
and the----
Dr. Cordova. Oh.
Mr. Marshall [continuing]. Electricity is less and some of
those things.
Dr. Cordova. OK. I understand. So we have a merit-review
system which is world-class. Other countries copy that. It has
been refined over the 70 years that we've been around. That
process looks at two things. It only looks at the budget later.
It looks at intellectual merit, and it looks at broader impact.
Then it gives a score for those two things and that's how we
approve a proposal. Then we look at the budget and does it make
sense. We review it in detail and we have lots of discussions
with the proposers--can you do it for less or do you really
think this is the right budget, and so forth. But it's only
after considering those other aspects that we look at the
budget.
Chairwoman Stevens. At this time we'd--and thank you, Dr.
Marshall.
At this time we'd like to recognize Dr. Lipinski for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Cordova, Dr.
Souvaine, thank you for your work. You both know how much I
appreciate the NSF and the great work that the NSF does and the
work that both of you do, so I've always been a very strong
supporter of the NSF. And my questions are not going to be a
surprise you what I'm going to ask about.
And the first is about I-Corps because I've been a big
champion of I-Corps, Innovation Corps, since the NSF started
it. I think it's really important that we do what we can to
help get the great work--you know, turn to the great work
that's being done through the research at our universities and
also our national labs into new products and services.
So I'm pleased that the FY 2020 budget request indicates
that NSF plans to expand I-Corps by increasing the number of
sites and nodes, and fostering a national innovation network.
So my question is--and I know the overall budget is very
difficult, you know, the small increase for I-Corps, but I
wanted to know how you're going to balance the--Dr. Cordova,
how you're going to balance the number of entrepreneur teams
funded with new I-Corps sites and nodes if there is not a
substantial funding increase.
Dr. Cordova. Thank you for your enthusiasm of our I-Corps.
This is a program that's only about half a dozen years old, and
it's already yielded over 500 new startup companies. And what
it's really changed I think is the whole idea that faculty have
that research can really be accelerated, and how do you do that
acceleration? And so I think it's a culture changer, as well as
given opportunities to new entrants to start their own
businesses. When I've gone around universities, I've seen women
and underrepresented minorities be some of the I-Corps
participants who are then starting their own businesses. It's
just a gamechanger.
We will do the best that we can by I-Corps. You've noticed
that we've held the budget relatively flat even though we have
$1 billion less in this proposal than we presently have to work
with. But I-Corps--because it's worked so well in such a short
time--has also influenced the way we do a number of our other
programs. For example, our Convergence Accelerator has an I-
Corps component to it because it's all really about how do you
get research to translate faster into public good. And I-Corps
was a way that showed us how to do that.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I wanted to move on to AI. Let me
just say I appreciate the fact, as I said, that the budget is
tough and the fact that I-Corps gets a small increase relative
to everything else. I appreciate that commitment from the NSF
to I-Corps and hope that continues to have that strong
commitment.
I know that Ranking Member Baird talked a little bit about
AI and asked a question about AI and social sciences. I have a
bill right now that would coordinate AI R&D across agencies.
And you know also the other thing I've been very focused on is
social science research and the importance of social science
research. I know you talked a little bit about that with regard
to AI.
But one other aspect of that is what about the societal
impacts of AI-enabled devices? Is this something that is going
to be a focus of NSF-funded research?
Dr. Cordova. Absolutely. I mentioned a couple of new
programs that we've offered or solicitations for proposals. One
is the combination of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic
Sciences Directorate with our Computer and Information Science
and Engineering Directorate and an entity called the
Partnership for AI, which is 50 industries and others.
Together, they've pooled resources to ask for proposals in
doing just that--to look at the ethical framework and the
impact of AI on society, anything to do with AI and people and
how it's going to affect them, but making sure that we have
unbiased, transparent, fair approaches to artificial
intelligence.
And one that's very similar is our collaboration with
Amazon. This $20 million collaboration over the next 3 years
where, again, it's the social and behavioral sciences and the
computer and information sciences that are requesting proposals
for ethical framework, impact framework for artificial
intelligence. So I think we're going to see--we just welcome,
as you know, all great proposals--and we'll see what we get.
I'll be happy to report to you later what some of the more
interesting proposals that we get along those lines.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. And, very quickly, Dr. Souvaine,
do you have anything to add on either of those? You don't have
to. I just wanted to give you the opportunity.
Dr. Souvaine. I think the board is very interested in
looking at AI, and we had a plenary session last July about it.
I think trustworthy AI is important, and we have to make sure
that we're incorporating ethical and other kinds of social and
behavioral questions into our development of AI.
Mr. Lipinski. Great. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski. And now I'd
like to recognize my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez, for 5
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our
witnesses not only for being here but for your incredible
leadership in helping maintain our innovative edge in the
United States.
I've been clear on this Committee from day one that I
believe basic research is critical to our economic future, and
I look forward to continuing to support NSF and all the great
work that you do.
My biggest concern right now is that we're going to fund
the programs--and I believe we will--but that we are still
vulnerable to threats specifically from China. Just last month,
FBI Director Christopher Wray pointed to the multilayered
threat posed by China, went on to say that no country
represents a more severe intelligence collection threat than
China and that China has pioneered an approach to stealing our
innovation from a wide array of businesses, universities, and
organizations.
Dr. Cordova, you mentioned that NSF has not found any
violations yet. I'm concerned, frankly, that means that we
haven't looked hard enough because I just don't believe that
China had--I've heard anecdotal stories, but that they are not
actively trying to take our innovation. Can you speak a little
bit more to that? How confident are you that, even though you
haven't found anything, that it's not occurring?
Dr. Cordova. I'm not.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK.
Dr. Cordova. And you're absolutely right. We actually have
a new research protection group within NSF that's chaired by
one of the people in my office. It's people across the whole
agency to look at ways that we can tighten our procedures in
order to mitigate against that.
We are working very closely with the Inspector General.
They have their own people in charge in this area, and we're
talking together about what we can do and how to approach this
and where there might be vulnerabilities.
I mentioned earlier one of them is in the whole disclosure
business. We do have, in theory, if everybody were disclosing
properly----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. All their relationships. Then we
would know how to tighten those procedures, too. So, yes, we're
really working on it. And I also mentioned we'll have this
meeting at the National Academies. We attend many FBI and CIA
meetings, so we're on it. We just want to be careful, as we
talked about earlier.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Cordova.You just don't want to go overboard in one
direction. You want to be sure that there's a balance there.
Mr. Gonzalez. Absolutely.
Dr. Cordova. Sure.
Mr. Gonzalez. And thank you. I don't mean to be quick with
it----
Dr. Cordova. Sure.
Mr. Gonzalez [continuing]. But I will say before I move on
to my next question I look forward to working with everybody on
the Committee and with both of you to make sure that we can
strike that right balance. We can get this right, we absolutely
can, and so I look forward to that.
Now I want to shift briefly to talent specifically in AI. I
ran a technology company at one point in my life, and the value
of an A-plus engineer versus a B engineer is actually 10X, 15X.
I'm seeing the heads nod, so agreement there. I guess my
question would be from a talent-management standpoint in NSF
when the Googles and Facebooks of the world can pay pretty
crazy sums to our engineers, how are we competing for talent
and making sure that our talent stays in the NSF or is working
on the problems that we need them to work on specific to AI?
Dr. Cordova. We have this rotator program that I
mentioned----
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. Where we can bring people in. The
majority of them come from universities. There's no reason why
they can't come from industry as well and work with us and
share. It is just an amazing program that we have with NSF.
Mr. Gonzalez. To get it to industry, would that require a
congressional fix or is that something within your purview to--
--
Dr. Cordova. No, it's within our purview.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK.
Dr. Cordova. We of course, you know, just do the conflict
of interest----
Mr. Gonzalez. Right.
Dr. Cordova [continuing]. But, no, absolutely. And now,
what we're seeing in universities is there's more churn there,
too, with people coming from industry into universities,
leaving for a while, teaching, et cetera, then going back to
industry and so on. So I think the circulation of brain talent
is going to happen more and more.
Mr. Gonzalez. OK. Great. So the rotator program sounds like
it'll be a big plus for us.
And then, Dr. Souvaine, I want to shift to something that
you said when you're talking about American leadership. And I
don't want to necessarily prime you, but another priority of
mine is to make sure that we're promoting STEM for women in
STEM. And you made a specific comment about having no tolerance
for harassment, completely, 1,000 percent agree. How can we do
a better job of making sure that we are fostering an
environment that is more conducive to women in STEM?
Dr. Souvaine. It's complicated. I think we've been working
at that for quite some time. I can think back to when I was a
young researcher, coming to NSF was always wonderful because
NSF got it early, and there were women in the building. In lots
of places I went, there weren't any women in the building, so
it was always pleasant to visit NSF.
And I think if we look at some statistics, it looks like
we're not making much advancement on having women in science
and engineering. And yet if you look at the numbers, the
numbers are going up. It's just that the growth of the
workforce in science and engineering is going up faster than
the number of women.
I think we have to have a textured approach. I think we
need to look at multi-facets. And part of that sometimes can
also be looking at little things. I know this will sound maybe
trivial, but I remember being on a faculty search committee and
going to the first meeting where people said that they had
already previewed the applications and they culled them down to
just those that had the right number of publications in the top
journals. I said that's wonderful. I'd love to redo the count.
And they said, wait a minute, no, no, we know the top--I said
you know the top journals but I'd like to do it by page count,
not on numbers of papers. And they said it's the same thing,
the journals published.
I said no, it's not the same thing because often the woman
or the person of color or the first-generation college goer
will collate more results into one paper so that when they
submit it, they have confidence it's going to be accepted, and
they said I don't believe that, but we'll recount. We got back
the next week, and there were five more women in the pool, one
Native American and one African-American just by looking at the
longer--and the journals aren't going to throw pages at
somebody.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes.
Dr. Souvaine. We may need to have the passion that NSF has
had to understand it's important to take steps to do things
within the foundation, but we need universities, we need
industry people, we need everyone to try to look at different
biases that could also feed into the AI question we had earlier
that might be not recognizing the talents of people that we
are--actually have.
Mr. Gonzalez. Great. Well, thank you. My time is up, but
again, I just want to thank you both for your leadership. And
one final comment. The little things add up, right, that make a
big difference, and so I appreciate your sentiments, and thank
you both for everything.
Chairwoman Stevens. We were delighted to give Mr. Gonzalez
some extra time for that fabulous last question.
And now I'd like to recognize my other colleague from Ohio,
Mr. Balderson, for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Cordova, thank you very much for being here this
morning. And investing in basic research and education is
crucial to ensuring America continues to be the world leader in
scientific innovation, and the NSF plays a major role and
central role in that.
One of my passions in Congress is ensuring that our
workforce is prepared. The Advanced Technology Education
program at NSF has got my interest. Could you talk a little bit
about how ATE is preparing students for the 21st century
economy and what sets the program apart from other CTE
initiatives?
Dr. Cordova. CTE?
Mr. Balderson. Career and technical education, thank you.
Dr. Cordova. OK. Thank you. I'm very familiar with ATE and
CTE caught me off guard. So the Advanced Technological
Education program has been going on for over 25 years now. We
love the program and so does Congress. It keeps increasing the
budget for it. It is in many, many community colleges around
the country, and it is giving students the opportunity to get
training to be part of a skilled technical workforce. It
doesn't require that they go on for a 4-year degree, and they
are coming out with really great skills.
I visited some of these community colleges and have seen
the kind of facilities that they have to train the students,
talked with the faculty who are very educated about the
industries of the future and what they need. What is really of
interest to me is that every ATE in each community college is
different because they're really serving the community. So if
you have one in Indiana, one in Ohio, there will be different
depending on the industry base of the area. They're very much
finely tuned so that people can get skills to go into those
particular industries and more general skills as well.
So it's a great program, and it's just had terrific
results. It's not the only thing we do for the skilled
technical workforce. Actually, we're spending--depending on how
you count the dollars because of all our programs--hundreds of
millions of dollars on the skilled technical workforce because
we have a lot of other entry opportunities. But that one is a
great one.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. Are there any thoughts or
insights or ideas on how we could expand some of this into a
rural district or rural area that's out there?
Dr. Cordova. Yes. We do have programs that are for more
rural areas. They're usually in bigger collaborations where
universities or community colleges want to penetrate those
areas. We have programs for Native American communities that
are generally in more rural areas. It kind of depends on what
you mean by rural because we fund about 2,000 universities,
colleges, and many other entities, and they can be in principle
anywhere. So it really depends on exactly what the program is.
I know some of our INCLUDES programs, which broaden
participation specifically, are designed to go into rural areas
to try to have more STEM initiatives. Young people having
access to STEM, can be inspired and then go on to colleges and
so forth. I hope that's helpful. And we can get you more detail
on specific rural programs.
Mr. Balderson. That was my next question if you could send
that to me.
Dr. Cordova. Yes.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Madam Chair, I yield back my remaining time.
Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. Well, I think it's fair to
say that we are in very good hands at the NSF with this
leadership and from today's very important hearing, reviewing
the Fiscal Year 2020 budget.
As the Representative from Michigan, I am delighted by the
leadership from NSF in our State. Over $200 million of funding
that our State has received, our top three research institutes,
our universities, University of Michigan, Michigan State
University, and Michigan Technological University receiving
lots of support for basic research and efforts that have had
profound implications for our State, particularly in STEM
workforce training and supporting students and the next
generation of discoverers.
So before we bring this hearing to a close, I'd just like
to thank our witnesses for testifying before us here today.
The record is going to remain open for 2 weeks for
additional statements from Members and any other questions that
they might ask of you.
And at this time, our witnesses are excused, and the
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]